And finally, there is that FEAR factor again. If I'm wrong, and global warming is caused by man, then we're "toast". This fear, that cannot even come close to being substantiated, except by how you FEEL on a really, really hot miserable day in August when the air conditioning isn't working, is not at all scientific. Is this fear great enough to spend billions and billions of dollars on? Enough fear to destroy countries economies? Is it enough to take money away from more desperate and sensible and documented projects. I don't think so, do you?
Hi Pete, The article from Mr. Linzen from MIT kind of rambles on with out
much clear standup opposing data that would help in any argument. That is
what is missing in the whole debate. Who is distorting info and data and
who is using it for whatever personal or political means. Dr. Linzen's
article is in the Wall Street Journal so it is not going to be left leaning or
environmentally friendly.
To me it is an enormous argument
that should be brought to the forefront and battled out. Let people hear
opposing arguments. Not ones that are sponsored by one interest group or
the other. I do not think most scientists are corrupted individuals
otherwise they would have gone into the private sector. Where it is really
nasty. I know.
The seas are rising, the earth is
heating up, however slowly, the ozone is increasing in size, the oceans are
warming however slightly, tropical fish are moving into Capo Vaticano.
This could all be normal happenings but in my short life I have observed
change. In 200 years what will it be like. Who cares, right.
I think it is a good argument.
To me it is like
the creationists vs the atheist non believers, it is good banter.
If the environmentalists are wrong, that is a good thing. If
the people who say man cannot harm or is not affecting mother earth in a
significant and dangerous way are wrong, well, we are toast. Or at
least North Central Africans will be first. I guess they are called
Sub-Sahara. They all ready have it bad enough.
bye for now.
phil
2 comments:
The people in sub-Saharan Africa have been suffering from severe food shortages for several years... long before AGW became vogue.
It's a devastating problem, an undisputed and tangible problem that should be addressed by the global community.
But it should not be used as a weapon in the AGWs arsenal of fear.
Emotionalism, our sense of civic responsibility, even our fears can move us to do great things. But they can also be used as a means to control and manipulate us. They must be balanced with calm, rational thought.
Linzen's article in the WSJ was probably about as balanced as Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
There's nothing wrong with expressing opposing ideas.
But we shouldn't be so quick to legislate policy based solely on one side or the other. We should demand our political leaders have an open and honest debate before passing laws that will affect all of our lives.
my2cents:
Yes, the situation if Darfur, or "Sub-Saharan" Africa is a tragic travesty. So are many, many areas around the world, and they've been that way as long as I can remember. Remember Biafra, the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc. None of these crises are remotely connected to "global warming".
What is the United Nations doing about these human catastrophes? What have they done with much lasting effect? Precious little. And now they've concocted a crises (global warming) that will transfer money from wealthy, "polluting" industrialized nations to poor undeveloped nations so they won't burn fossil fuels. How are these starving people going to produce food and cook it without fossil fuels? Ask Big Al if he cares.
Post a Comment